yourstudent_geminifandomcom-20200216-history
Vandalism Act (Singapore)
|enacted_by = Parliament of Singapore |date_enacted = 26 August 1966 |date_assented = 31 August 1966 . |date_commenced = 16 September 1966 |bill = Punishment for Vandalism Bill |bill_citation = Bill No. 36/66 |bill_date = 17 August 1966 |introduced_by = Wee Toon Boon (Minister of State for Defence) |1st_reading = 17 August 1966 . |2nd_reading = 26 August 1966 . |3rd_reading = 26 August 1966 |amendments = |repeals = |related_legislation = |summary = }} The Vandalism Act is a statute of the Parliament of Singapore that criminalizes a number of different acts done in relation to public and private property, namely, stealing, destroying or damaging public property; and, without the property owner's written consent, writing, drawing, painting, marking or inscribing the property; affixing posters, placards, etc., to the property; and suspending or displaying on or from the property any flag, banner, etc. In addition to a fine or jail term, the Act imposes mandatory corporal punishment of between three and eight strokes of the cane for second or subsequent convictions. Caning is also imposed for first convictions for defacing property using an indelible substance; and stealing, destroying or damaging public property. The Children and Young Persons Act ("CYPA") states that the High Court may impose a caning penalty on juvenile offenders as well. In a 1968 case, the High Court held that despite the wording of this provision, a subordinate court may sentence juveniles to caning under the Vandalism Act as that Act takes precedence over the CYPA. The 1994 conviction of 18-year-old American citizen Michael P. Fay for vandalizing cars using spray paint, and the sentence of six strokes of the cane imposed on him, provoked much controversy with both condemnation and support from Americans. Following a request by US President Bill Clinton for clemency, President Ong Teng Cheong commuted Fay's caning sentence from six to four strokes. In 2010, a Swiss national, Oliver Fricker, pleaded guilty to charges of trespassing into a Mass Rapid Transit depot and spray-painting a train with an accomplice, and was sentenced to five months' jail and three strokes of the cane. On appeal, the High Court increased his total jail term to seven months. History Vandalism was originally prohibited by the Minor Offenses Act, which made it punishable by a fine of up to $50 and/or a week in jail.Jothie Rajah, Authoritarian Rule of Law, Cambridge University Press 2012. The Vandalism ActNo. 38 of 1966; now the ("VA"). was introduced into Parliament as the Punishment for Vandalism Bill on 17 August 1966. At the second reading of the bill on 26 August, its introducer, the Minister of State for Defence Wee Toon Boon, said that Members of Parliament were aware of the reasons for the bill .}} However, Jothie Rajah of the American Bar Foundation has argued that the actual target of the law was activists from the Barisan Sosialis, an opposition party harshly suppressed at the time, who used posters and graffiti to spread their message. Taking part in the Parliamentary debate, the Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew commented that the bill, which sought to impose a mandatory caning sentence on persons convicted for the first time of vandalism with an indelible substance, was a "departure from what is normal criminal law legislation". However, the punishment was necessary because .}} The bill was committed to a Committee of the whole House, read a third time and passed the same day. It was assented to by the President of Singapore on 31 August, and came into force on 16 September 1966. As of 2010, the Act had not been amended significantly since it was enacted. In the 1994 case Fay Michael Peter v. Public Prosecutor,1994 1 S.L.R.® [Singapore Law Reports (Reissue)] 1063, High Court. the appellant's counsel submitted briefly before the High Court that the original legislative intent behind the imposition of a caning penalty was to suppress violent political elements which existed in Singapore in the 1960s which had, among other things, inscribed anti-national slogans in public places. However, Chief Justice Yong Pung How took the view that it was "too simplistic" to claim that the Act was aimed mainly at punishing riotous anti-national elements: "That may have been one of the more urgent objectives at the time the Act was enacted in 1966 but a reading of the relevant Parliamentary Debates shows that the Legislature was simultaneously concerned with containing anti-social acts of hooliganism."Fay Michael Peter, para. 16. Provisions Definition of act of vandalism Section 2 of the Vandalism Act defines an act of vandalism as: :(a) without the written authority of an authorised officer or representative of the Government or of the government of any Commonwealth or foreign country or of any statutory body or authority or of any armed force lawfully present in Singapore in the case of public property, or without the written consent of the owner or occupier in the case of private property — ::(i) writing, drawing, painting, marking or inscribing on any public property or private property any word, slogan, caricature, drawing, mark, symbol or other thing; ::(ii) affixing, posting up or displaying on any public property or private property any poster, placard, advertisement, bill, notice, paper or other document;On 5 October 2009, five Falungong practitioners were arrested by the police under the Vandalism Act for affixing 82 posters and banners about the Falungong to the wall of the Esplanade Bridge underpass: . or ::(iii) hanging, suspending, hoisting, affixing or displaying on or from any public property or private property any flag, bunting, standard, banner or the like with any word, slogan, caricature, drawing, mark, symbol or other thing; or :(b) stealing, destroying or damaging any public property. Public property means movable or immovable property owned by the Government of Singapore, the government of any Commonwealth or foreign country, any statutory body or authority, or any armed force lawfully present in Singapore.VA, s. 2. Offences and penalties led graffiti on a wall at Ann Siang Road showing Mas Selamat bin Kastari who escaped from preventive detention in Singapore on 27 February 2008 but was recaptured in Johor Bahru, Malaysia, on 1 April 2009]] Notwithstanding the provisions of any other written law, it is an offence under the Act to commit any act of vandalism, attempt to do any such act, or cause any such act to be done. Upon conviction, the penalty is a fine not exceeding S$2,000 or imprisonment not exceeding three years, and also corporal punishment of not less than three strokes and not more than eight strokes of the cane. However, caning will not be imposed on a first conviction if the act carried out falls within section 2(a)(i) and "the writing, drawing, mark or inscription is done with pencil, crayon, chalk or other delible substance or thing and not with paint, tar or other indelible substance or thing", or within sections 2(a)(ii) or (iii).VA, s. 3. In the Fay Michael Peter case, the appellant Michael P. Fay had earlier pleaded guilty before a district judge to two charges of vandalism by spraying red paint on two cars. Twenty other charges were taken into consideration for sentencing purposes, 16 of them charges of vandalism committed with paint. On appeal to the High Court, Fay's counsel argued that the Act, properly interpreted, showed that Parliament had not intended to punish all acts of vandalism using paint with caning, and that in each case the court had to determine if the paint used was easily removable or not before deciding whether to sentence the defendant to caning. Chief Justice Yong Pung How rejected this submission on the ground that there was no reason to deviate from the plain meaning of the words in the Act. There was no indication in the Act of any Parliamentary intention to subject all acts of vandalism committed with paint to an ad hoc test of indelibility. He said: The punishment imposed by the Act is expressly made subject to sections 325(1) and 330(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, ("CPC") (formerly s. 231 of the . which prohibit a caning sentence from being imposed on women, men considered by the court to be more than 50 years old, and men sentenced to death. Caning sentences may be imposed on juveniles above the age of seven years and under 16 years,The CPC, s. 329(4), states that caning shall be inflicted on a juvenile with a "light rattan"; under s. 2, juvenile means a person who, in the absence of legal proof to the contrary, is seven years of age or above and below the age of 16 years in the opinion of the court. No child under seven years old may be charged with an offence ( ("PC"), s. 82), and a child above seven and under 12 years may only be found guilty of an offence if he or she has attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequence of his or her conduct (PC, s. 83). as the Children and Young Persons Act specifically states that, notwithstanding the provisions of any other written law, no child or young person shall be sentenced by any court other than the High Court to corporal punishment. ("CYPA"), s. 37(3) (emphasis added). A child is a person below 14 years, and a young person is a person who is 14 years or above and below the age of 16 years: s. 2. Despite the express words reserving to the High Court the power to impose the penalty, the Court has held that caning may be imposed on a child or young person by a subordinate court as the Vandalism Act takes precedence over the Children and Young Persons Act.Ang Chin Sang v. Public Prosecutor 1968–1970 S.L.R.® 4 at paras. 10–12, High Court. When the decision was rendered in 1968, the relevant provision was s. 55(3) of the Children and Young Persons Ordinance (Cap. 128, 1955 Rev. Ed.), which was identical to the CYPA, s. 37(3). For criticism, see . Other provisions Offences under the Act are arrestable and non-bailable.VA, s. 6. Thus, a person committing such an offence may be arrested without a warrant by a police officer and, in some circumstances, a private person.CPC, ss. 2(1) (definition of arrestable offence), 64 (arrest by police without warrant) and 66 (arrest by private person). The Act also provides that in the case of a prosecution for dishonestly receiving stolen property under section 411 of the Penal Code, where the stolen property is public property, it shall be presumed unless the defendant is able to prove otherwise that the person who received or retained the property knew or had reason to believe that the property was stolen public property, and also that he or she received or retained it dishonestly.VA, s. 7. Notable cases ]] On 3 March 1994, Michael P. Fay, an American citizen aged 18 years, pleaded guilty to two charges of vandalizing cars by spray-painting them between 17 and 18 September 1993 together with three accomplices. One of the cars belonged to Judicial Commissioner Amarjeet Singh. Fay was sentenced by a District Court to two months' imprisonment and three strokes of the cane on each charge.Fay Michael Peter, paras. 1–2. The High Court later rejected an appeal against the sentence.Fay Michael Peter. The caning sentence provoked much controversy in the United States, and was condemned as cruel and excessive for a non-violent offence. ; ; ; . On the other hand, a significant number of Americans supported the penalty, reasoning that American citizens who travelled abroad had to respect the laws of the countries that they visited, and that the United States was not tough enough on its own juvenile offenders. ; ; . Following a request by US President Bill Clinton for clemency, President Ong Teng Cheong commuted Fay's caning from six to four strokes. The sentence was carried out on 5 May 1994. ; ; . A 32-year-old Swiss national, Oliver Fricker, was charged in court on 5 June 2010 for having allegedly trespassed into the SMRT Corporation's Changi Depot, a protected place, and vandalized a Mass Rapid Transit train by spray-painting graffiti on it between the night of 16 May and the early hours of 17 May. The graffiti consisted of the words "McKoy Banos", said to be the signature of two anonymous "artists" who have tagged trains around the world. A Briton, Dane Alexander Lloyd, was also named on the charge sheet, but he was not present in court and was believed to have left Singapore for Hong Kong. ; ; . A warrant of arrest for Lloyd has been issued by a court, and the authorities will seek to extradite him to stand trial in Singapore if there is an extradition treaty between Singapore and the country where he is found. ; ; ; . On 25 June, Fricker pleaded guilty to the charges against him and was sentenced to two months' jail for trespass and three months' jail and three strokes of the cane for vandalism, the jail terms to run consecutively. ; ; ; ; . Both Fricker and the prosecution appealed to the High Court against the trespass sentence. On 18 August, Justice V.K. Rajah increased the sentence to four months, calling the original sentence "manifestly inadequate", thus requiring Fricker to serve seven months' jail altogether. He also commented that "while some might regard graffiti as a stimulating and liberating activity that adds colour, spice and variety to a staid environment", such actions were "offensive to the sensibilities of the general public".Fricker Oliver v. Public Prosecutor 2010 SGHC 239, High Court; ; . See also *Caning in Singapore *Criminal law of Singapore Notes References * ("CYPA"). * ("CPC"). * ("PC"). * ("VA"). *''Fay Michael Peter v. Public Prosecutor'' 1994 1 S.L.R.(R.) 1063, High Court (Singapore). * . Further reading Articles * . * . * . * . * (pbk.), ISBN 978-0-203-96551-1 (ebk.)}}. Books and theses * . * . * . * . Category:1966 in law Category:1966 in Singapore Category:Singaporean criminal law Category:Singaporean legislation Category:Vandalism